Why is LnS ranked so poor in the test?

Discussion in 'LnS English Forum' started by mattad, Jul 15, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mattad

    mattad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Posts:
    66
  2. boonie

    boonie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Posts:
    238
    Let me quote Peter2150 from another thread.

    "do a search on matousec and read to your hearts content."

    or start here.

    IMO, If you're looking for a firewall only (No HIPS), LnS is an excellent one.
     
  3. Frederic

    Frederic LnS Developer

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Posts:
    4,354
    Location:
    France
    Yes, there is no HIPS feature inside Look 'n' Stop and it explains this result.

    Additionally, we disagree with the way the kill tests are done.
    Look 'n' Stop contains 2 advanced features to block both filterings (Application and Packet/Internet) even if the application is stopped/killed.

    The test should verify if an application (a new one, not known by the firewall, or a blocked one) can connect to internet after the kill is done. Otherwise the test is not significant.
    In the same way, some incoming packets should be sent after the test to verify the PC is still stealth or not.
    Look 'n' Stop is mentioned there as failing the kill tests, although it should not.

    Regards,

    Frederic
     
  4. PROGAME

    PROGAME Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Posts:
    4
    The problem i am having with this test is

    i am using 2 separate programs as hips and firewall

    My HIPS (SSM) basically says i am not a firewall so i am not supposed to do well in Matousec Firewall Challenge

    And my firewall (Look n Stop) says i am not a HIPS and this Firewall Challenge is actually meant for HIPS

    very annoying o_O

    The truth is, it tests both HIPS and firewall capabilities and this stupid levels system they use in their tests doesn't even let one compare different combinations of products (since LnS didn't get to level 3 i don't know if it passed the test SSM failed there for example)
     
  5. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    In my opinion LnS isn't designed to look good in tests but is actually designed to do the job its intended to do,I keep trying every now and then the latest"flavour of the month" firewalls and find in real life situations none of them are as good or as light on my system as LnS
     
  6. pureobscure

    pureobscure Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Posts:
    4
    I totally agree with this post. I will admit that the Matousec tests made me rethink my LnS & NOD32 2.7 duo choice. So I purchased Kaspersky Internet Security to add HIPS and used that for a few months. And while Kaspersky has some strengths, and it's nice to have everything in one package, it was a bear on system resources and a REAL pain in the neck to use. It also caused some weird system issues that disappeared when I removed it.

    So I came back to LnS and NOD32. And I feel perfectly secure (again). LnS is amazingly light and it just works. I have never had a new application install and not been prompted by LnS for it to access the outside world. But there were a couple on Kaspersky that slipped through (confirmed with a netstat showing that the application had phoned home).

    I would always recommend that people have AV and a software firewall (augmenting a hardware firewall), but HIPS can be too intrusive and slow your computer down significantly. So just replace HIPS with common sense.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.